Tuhkanen Kari, Heino Antero, Aaltomaa Sirpa, Ala-Opas Martti
Department of Urology, Kuopio University Hospital, Finland.
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37(6):487-93. doi: 10.1080/00365590310015769.
To evaluate the long-term results of contact laser vaporization (CLV) of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with symptomatic bladder outflow obstruction (BOO) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with prostates smaller than 40 ml.
A total of 52 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urodynamically confirmed BOO caused by BPH with glands smaller than 40 ml were treated by means of CLV or TURP in a randomized trial. Changes in symptom score, urodynamics and prostate volume were evaluated during a 4-year follow-up period.
A total of 42 (81%) of the patients were available for review at 4 years. The re-operation rate was 1/26 for each treatment. A sustained improvement in median Danish Prostate Symptom Score was seen in the laser group from 18 (range 5-54) to 5 (0-34) and in the TURP group from 18 (4-46) to 4 (0-18) (p<0.001 for both). A sustained improvement in maximum urinary flow rate was also seen in the laser group from 8.3 (4.8-19.6) ml/s to 14.3 (10.1-33.6) ml/s (p<0.001) and in the TURP group from 8.6 (5.0-15.9) ml/s to 16.1 (7.7-39.6) ml/s (p<0.01), without differences between the study groups. Median detrusor pressure at maximum urinary flow rate decreased significantly after both treatments, in the CLV group from 64 (32-112) cmH2O to 38 (18-65) cmH2O and in the TURP group from 57 (40-137) cmH2O to 28 (9-44) cmH2O (p<0.001 for both), and at 48 months was significantly higher in the laser group (p<0.01). At 4 years, 7/22 (32%) of the laser patients and 2/20 (10%) of the TURP patients were urodynamically obstructed. Post-void residual at 48 months was significantly lower in the TURP group than in the CLV group. Median prostate volume was smaller after TURP at 6 and 48 months (p<0.05).
Long-term data of CLV and TURP treatments for BPH with small or moderately enlarged prostates indicate no significant difference in the relief of symptoms or in the rate of re-operations. However, the number of patients in this study was small and consequently the power to detect differences between the study groups was low. Regarding most objective outcome parameters, long-term follow-up revealed a slight advantage of TURP over CLV.
评估接触式激光汽化术(CLV)和经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)对前列腺体积小于40ml的良性前列腺增生(BPH)所致有症状膀胱出口梗阻(BOO)患者的长期疗效。
在一项随机试验中,对52例因BPH导致下尿路症状(LUTS)且经尿动力学证实为BOO、前列腺体积小于40ml的患者采用CLV或TURP治疗。在4年的随访期内评估症状评分、尿动力学和前列腺体积的变化。
4年时共有42例(81%)患者可供复查。每种治疗的再次手术率均为1/26。激光组丹麦前列腺症状评分中位数从18分(范围5 - 54分)持续改善至5分(0 - 34分),TURP组从18分(4 - 46分)持续改善至4分(0 - 18分)(两组p均<0.001)。激光组最大尿流率也从8.3(4.8 - 19.6)ml/s持续改善至14.3(10.1 - 33.6)ml/s(p<0.001),TURP组从8.6(5.0 - 15.9)ml/s改善至16.1(7.7 - 39.6)ml/s(p<0.01),两组间无差异。两种治疗后最大尿流率时的逼尿肌压力中位数均显著下降,CLV组从64(32 - 112)cmH₂O降至38(18 - 65)cmH₂O,TURP组从57(40 - 137)cmH₂O降至28(9 - 44)cmH₂O(两组p均<0.001),且48个月时激光组显著更高(p<0.01)。4年时,激光组22例患者中有7例(32%)存在尿动力学梗阻,TURP组20例患者中有2例(10%)存在尿动力学梗阻。48个月时TURP组的残余尿量显著低于CLV组。TURP术后6个月和48个月时前列腺体积中位数更小(p<0.05)。
CLV和TURP治疗前列腺小或中度增大的BPH的长期数据表明,症状缓解或再次手术率无显著差异。然而,本研究患者数量较少,因此检测研究组间差异的效能较低。关于大多数客观结局参数,长期随访显示TURP略优于CLV。